New I-5 Bridge
Below I have included several commonly-fielded questions regarding the Columbia River Crossing project. I hope that you find utility in my answers as you decide whom to support in this election. If you have questions or comments related to any of this, PLEASE email me. Being a state legislator means being a community leader. And as a leader in our community, it is my honor and privilege to discuss issues with all of you: the citizens of the 49th legislative district.
There has been talk about tolling the I-205 bridge AND the new I-5 bridge. What’s your position?
I don’t think that the discussion about tolling the I-205 bridge, in addition to the I-5 bridge, has any political traction. Not that the idea hasn’t also been discussed for the I-90/SR-520 bridge replacement in Seattle. First of all, I understand that it would take an Act of Congress, since it is a federal interstate, to authorize tolling, and although that will come with the I-5 bridge replacement funding, there isn’t a clear enough nexus between tolling I-205 and revamping the 1-5 bridge. And clarity and straightforwardness are what we need, now more than ever. Regardless that it would cut the traffic diversion to avoid the toll and pay off the project in half the time, I think it’s just a non-starter.
The voters should decide if we want light-rail!
And they will! The requirement that the voters decide if they want light-rail and to replace the bridge is already in the works! The transit funding package will be voted on by Clark County voters next year and without the transit maintenance funding for the light-rail, there will be NO new bridge. As these mega-projects are very complicated and take years to plan and design, there will be no new bridge for at least the next several years as federal funding is authorized in 7 year time frames and the window for federal funding will only be open a short time. Remember, we will be competing nationally for project funding. This is where having a Washington Senator with seniority as co-chair on the Transportation Committee, like Sen. Patty Murray, comes in handy!
We pay enough taxes already! Why do we have to pay tolls too?
The state-issued bonds committed to transportation projects from existing taxes have already been identified for the next 20 years. The local vote on funding next year is a local commitment for our share of the transit component. Another local commitment will be the tolls. No one likes tolls. However, the idea that the users of the bridge help pay for the bridge (just as they’ve done since the first bridge was built in 1917) is a good, fair and conservative one. Funding will be a combination of federal, state and local sources. Local taxes will be voted on by citizens, but user fees, like tolls, will be set by the state and authorized by the Transportation Commission – a group of citizens appointed by the Governor that set transportation priorities around the state based on need – not politics. Tolls are baked into the cake of this project. No tolls – no bridge. I believe my focus should be the lowest possible tolls and the easiest possible process for commuters in SW Washington.
A third bridge across the Columbia is a better idea than fixing this bridge. Why don’t we do that instead?
The third bridge idea has been thoroughly vetted and rejected by the Project Sponsors Council, the respective City Council’s, the DOT’s, and the people who have participated in the discussions about the bridge since discussions started on its replacement nearly 10 years ago. The purchase of rights-of-way on Washington AND Oregon, plus the relocation of homes and businesses all point to a very expensive project that will not remove the basic problems with the I-5 bridge – it’s a traffic bottleneck, it’s the only drawbridge on the corridor, it’s seismically unsafe, it’s too small for the demanded use, and it has no transit component. First thing’s first: it’s the I-5 bridge that needs replacement. Building a new corridor may indeed happen in the future, but for now, let’s fix what we have, rather than build a whole new corridor.
Adding a toll onto this burden makes it feel like we are paying twice: once for having a job in Oregon and a second time for commuting there. How can Jim or anyone from CR crossing address this to assuage those of us who are fired up about it because the job market in Clark County and environs is so poor?
This is likely the number one question I get at my office. Why can’t we get any relief from the “taxation without representation or benefit”? We all make choices. We choose where we work and where we live. Choosing to work in Oregon and live in Washington has its benefits (good schools, lower property taxes, no income tax and close to sales tax free Oregon), as well as its problems (9% income tax to Oregon, the commute, no recognition of Clark County being the 6th largest source of tax revenue for Oregon or “representation” in their legislature).
The facts are that these mega-projects are financed today with bonds sold to the public on a guarantee of return over a 20 year period. All sources are considered in the bond rating for eventual payback to the general public who buys them. The full faith and credit of the states of Oregon and Washington are included in the calculation along with projected toll revenues – based on research and other similar projects.
The problem arises when citizens see only taxes (income, sales, gas, etc) and NOT financing of capital projects (bonds). The income tax commuter’s pay has no relationship to the bridge financing – it’s comparing apples and oranges. The income tax is how Oregon pays for its schools, universities, police and fire, health care, and other social services. This is also why the Oregon legislature will NEVER give a Washington resident any credit for the bridge tolls. Why would they? Out of the kindness of their hearts? They face the same economic crisis in their public infrastructure as we do – so to give away money would be foolish.
Tolls are baked into the cake with this project as part of the overall financing. No tolls – no bridge. I understand the costs and benefits of Clark County residency, and I am more content to live and lead here today than ever before. In fairness, I do believe that now is the time to withdraw the sales tax exemption for Oregonians. I’m tired of being asked if I’m a “Washington resident” when I go to pay a cashier. I was the only legislator from Southwest Washington to support the elimination of the exemption. It means $80 million more to the general fund, and an equally large dose of fair play. I like that.
Read the Columbia River Crossing website and get their updates directly.
